First round is fist fight and opening statements. I look forward to this debate.
I am going to prove that littering of any kind is beneficial to our natural environment, and my opponent has to prove otherwise.

If i were to divert a main sewage system to drain into a popular lake, the chances of catching a disease from that lake would be high. If someone owned that lake and sold it, i would buy it and rename it Typhoid lake and continue to redirect other sewage system to that lake using taxpayer money.

Throwing a tin soda can on to the ground is giving that tin back to the earth from where i came.

Littering is just something we came up with. Littering is only littering because of the time it takes for whatever you are littering, a long time to decompose. If the environment has its tin back, that is good because it benefits the restocking of tin. If you shot things from the planet into space, then that is taking away from the planet.
Paper gets wet and decomposes. If its paper on asphalt not soil, then the asphalt will have to decay for the paper to decay. The environment does not become less if i throw a piece of paper out my window.
Beneficial can mean anything really because.
God made that earth, and he is not worried about litter.https://www.youtube.com...

The first thing we need to get out of the way, is what it means to benifit the environment. It seems that my opponent is taking this litterally by saying that it litterally benifits the ground we stand upon for it to retrieve its tinfoil/other recources. This is a clever way to affirm the resolution however from a strictly reasonable stand point we shouldn't accept the idea that we can benifit something which inanimate. There is no way to benifit a handful of dirt. Any proposition which says we can benifit something which cannot experience life is personifying mother earth and fundementally doesn't make sense.

I have a separate interpritation of the resolution which is to say that the environemnt is synonymous with the ecosystems of the earth, in which case this resolution becomes easy to disaffirm. Clearly littering is bad for animals, insects and most life residing within ecosystems. The primary fact is that these are foreign objects which these animals have never evolved or adapted to live with. They are toxins to the ecosystem which can only result in the destruction of it. If I can show that even One instane of littering is bad then I win the round becuase the resolution is that ALL littering is good, showing one instance is bad would prove that not all litering is good.

My bastard opponent says that his examples were not beneficial, but all of these examples were pictures of animals either being choked by plastic or were tangled in plastic.
"This duck has completely lost the ability to eat because its mouth has been shut by a bottle holder." This is false, if you look at the picture again you can see that the animal's beak is clear. The animal look like it is wearing a hat, and this is good.

The second example is not necessarily bad, because humans do this. The turtle looks fine... https://cheeju.files.wordpress.com...
The next two examples are photoshoped.
Littering is not bad. I litter a lot, and nothing has happened. When has a message in a bottle ever hurt anything?
If animals did not interact with litter than nothing can be bad about it. But animals in a lot of cases do, you would say.
To that I would say that if animals littered then it would not be bad for us. If animals drink 6 packs and left the plastic
can rings on the side of the street, left by a bird, i would not get my head stuck in it. humans do not have to worry about animals littering because animals do not litter. Humans litter and the environment is impacted in a good way. Oh, and i forgot to define, "good" for this debate.
Good- Negative and unhelpful. Also non beneficent and corrupt.

Man, you are twisting the debate.
I take debating very serious, even though I might do a good job at it. I'm trying to win the debate. I would like to see you be Pro, it's not easy, ok? I have had other great debates like this one, where i had almost won. I concede, because proving that litter is good, is not possible when an animal can choke and die trying to eat plastic. I had to make good mean bad for this debate, that would be the only way out. I would have been lucky to get a draw. I have almost won other debate were it was not in my favor, but I challenge myself.http://www.debate.org...

Reasons for voting decision: Con succeeds on their observation -- as the resolution contains the word "all," if Con can show *one* undisputed example of non-beneficial littering, Con wins. Con does provide examples, but Pro uses weak appeals to intuition and defenses to refute these, merely saying "this isn't a problem," etc. without any justification. It's very weak and unsourced, and, as such, I have to award arguments to Con for positing some undisputed examples.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Stating "My bastard opponent" like is done in round 3 gives me plenty reason to give conduct to Con, This is unnecessary and draws from the debate.
Arguments:
Ultimately Pro does not provide any evidence or counters to Cons examples of animals suffering from pollution from littering. Then Pro concedes.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.